Britain’s conservatives have been warned that by leaving the largest grouping in the European Parliament they risk losing any influence they have had on EU policymaking. Geoffrey Van Orden MEP, explains why, on the contrary, his party’s go-it-alone stance makes good sense
David Cameron, the new leader of the Conservative Party in the UK, has committed himself to establishing a new political group in the European Parliament, and therefore to breaking the party’s affiliation to the European Peoples Party-European Democrats (EPP-ED) Group. Many may regard this as a marginal issue in the wider scheme of European affairs, but it has profound political implications. That is why it has attracted controversy and stirred opposition from those who would prefer to let sleeping dogs lie, for the party’s attitude to the EPP is closely related to its attitude to the European Union as a whole.
The EU was created in a bygone era for purposes that were commendable at the time, but it is now overblown. It has lost its way and is not popular. For hard evidence of that, turn to the European Parliamentary elections two years ago, which marked a victory for euro-sceptic parties and for apathy. Last year, to reinforce the point, French and Dutch voters turned out in force to reject the proposed European Constitution.
One could draw different conclusions from these events: you could convince yourself that voters actually love the EU but seized opportunities to express dissatisfaction on other issues; you could blame European electorates for their ignorance and for not fully appreciating the merits of the EU; or, perish the thought, you could seriously question the way the EU has developed and where it is going.
That last thought did indeed perish very quickly among the relatively small but highly committed group of eurocrats – officials and politicians – that drives the EU Project. They prefer to ponder new ways of bringing the EU “closer to the people”. This includes spending more money on advertising; slowing the process of enlargement (as “widening” demonstrably seems to mean less “deepening”); and reacting vehemently against anyone who opposes their activities. Their own articles of faith are a commitment to the process of ever-closer union, extending the powers of the European Commission, overcoming what they see as the twin curses of nationalism and inter-governmentalism, and the creation of an over-arching “European state” with a global role.
The Conservative Party in Britain today takes a different view. It attaches importance to national sovereignty and accountable government, to free markets, deregulation and openness to the world, and a strong atlanticism in terms of foreign and defence policy. It is therefore eurosceptic and, in this regard at least, it probably reflects the sentiments of the majority of people in the UK and perhaps many other countries. If you are a voter in Germany or France, for example, and have doubts about the EU, there is no mainstream political party that reflects your views. The political establishment in both countries has provided the driving force for the EU since its inception, and regards as heretics those who question its central tenets.
It is for this reason that the entrenched cartel that runs the EU has reacted so strongly to the idea that a reasonable, mainstream political force might emerge that would challenge its unrepresentative domination. And that in turn is why the proposal that Britain’s Conservatives in the European Parliament should break with the EPP-ED Group and launch off to become the core of a new group is viewed with such alarm. I have never known an issue as inflammatory among political pundits, let alone among political opponents. And I have never known so much political energy to be expended by those within the old guard who are opposed to the idea.
The new group would not be a mere technical alliance to suit parliamentary needs. It would constitute a new geopolitical force in which British Conservatives and like-minded parties across Europe would seek to shift the EU in a different direction.
Many observers take the view that there is an inevitability about the course of the EU, and that fundamental change is neither possible nor desirable. We disagree profoundly; the EU has to change. Its institutions (Commission, Council and Parliament) are predicated on the idea of an integrated European state and a new European “demos”, which it is also their mission to create.
The European Commission is inherently undemocratic – its College of Commissioners is appointed and is barely accountable, while its staff are, for the most part, recruited according to federalist criteria.
The Council is a purely notional constraint. It is organised and supported by a secretariat whose federalising motives differ only fractionally from those of the Commission. The actions of our government ministers sitting in Council in Brussels are remote from their electorates and are neither subject to meaningful scrutiny nor understood by public opinion. They are advised by officials for whom the habits of the Brussels routine have become ingrained.
The system for electing MEPs on party lists to represent vast “constituencies” is a meaningless imposition. In most countries (the UK is among the few exceptions) the selection of candidates for party lists is biased in favour of protagonists of the EU project, who tend to be critical only of the speed and effectiveness of its implementation rather than its fundamentals.
What is now really exciting is the possibility of having an active, campaigning, politically astute group, harnessing its resources for new political purposes that would at last project the views of enormous numbers of people across Europe.
With some minor exceptions, the national party delegations in the European Parliament belong to multi-national political groups that should each reflect a broad consensus of views. In its organisation of day-to-day business and in its funding, the Parliament is structured to encourage the group system, and it now intends to extend the concept to funding transnational political parties across the EU.
There are at present seven political groups and they are required to have a minimum of 19 members from at least five member states. The largest is the centrist EPP-ED made up of 264 members of the European Parliament, followed by the Socialists with 200 members. Neither commands a majority in the 732 member-Parliament.
For some years, the UK’s 28 Conservative and Unionist MEPs have been allied to the EPP. This might seem reasonable as the EPP ostensibly comprises our “natural” political allies among the Christian Democrat parties across Europe. But the reality is rather different, particularly with regard to the key questions about the future of Europe. The EPP regards itself as "the motor of European integration" and was the prime mover behind the European Constitution. It wants an EU army, an EU justice system and an EU "FBI". It also wants an end to the British rebate on its EU budget payments and to the UK's permanent seat on the UN Security Council. And of course it wants the euro and a Europe-wide tax system, so you might well ask which part of such an agenda are Conservatives supposed to support?
The EPP is not a centre-right party and angrily rejects being labelled right-wing, centre-right or indeed conservative. Conservative MEPs have difficulty sustaining “euro-sceptic” credentials at home when in Brussels they are affiliated to one of the most federalist blocs in the Parliament.
The strongest argument we conservatives now hear for staying in the EPP-ED is that we “have influence” – i.e. we can swing another 236, otherwise contrary votes. This is a superficially attractive claim, but there is very topical evidence that it is unrealistic. A British Conservative who was the EPP-ED coordinator on the Parliament’s Internal Market Committee actually drew up terms for the final EPP-ED whip on the Services Directive that were so blatantly out of step with Conservative thinking that the British Conservatives had to draw up a separate whip! In other words, even in economic and fiscal policy, where there is supposed to be the greatest commonality of interest, we don’t influence the EPP but, instead, are compromised by its agenda. Yes, we can help arrange those hundreds of votes, provided we agree with EPP policy in the first place.
We British Conservatives will, of course, continue to work closely with the EPP whenever possible, and it is more likely to take account of our policy positions when it has to court our votes rather than taking them for granted. We can also look forward to ending the practical disadvantages in our EPP affiliation that have rendered us invisible and toothless. Our views have not been represented in the Conference of Presidents, made up of political group leaders, which makes all the important decisions about the running of the Parliament and its business. As part of the EPP-ED group we have not sat as a physically coherent and visible bloc because British Conservatives are dispersed alphabetically throughout the group. Our voice has not been heard in big set-piece debates. For instance, when Tony Blair came to the European Parliament it was Hans-Gert Poettering, the EPP-ED group’s leader, who took the floor on our behalf. Blair had left the Chamber by the time the leader of the British Conservatives had a chance to speak.
Other drawbacks are that we have been unable to recruit centre-right parties to join us in the ED without the approval of the EPP–ED Group as a whole. Outrageously, it now seems to have the last word even on membership of the British Conservative delegation. And we have had little control over the recruitment and management of staff allocated to us, and we contribute a significant proportion of the financial support provided by the Parliament to the promotion of political causes to which most of us are fundamentally opposed
For all these reasons – political, practical, and in terms of our integrity – I fully support David Cameron's intention that the British Conservatives should create a new group in the European Parliament to more accurately reflect the views of the British people and our own core values and beliefs on Europe.
This new group will start as the fourth largest in the Parliament and will attract more members once it is up and running. It will comprise serious politicians and mainstream parties of government that are uncomfortable with their own positions and with the nature and thrust of the EU itself. Our allies will most certainly not be fascists, or indeed anti-Conservative elements such as the UK Independence Party (UKIP), or any of the other false targets on which opponents of the break with the EPP are so fixated.
The modern Conservative Party under David Cameron's leadership seeks to occupy more of the centre ground in British politics. On Europe, that centre ground has shifted in recent years and is now the “euro-sceptic” position occupied by the Conservatives. To the left are those who seek close political integration with Europe, to the right those who wish to sever all links with Europe. From our standpoint, nothing could be more outmoded than the social market, ultra-integrationist model devised some 50 years ago and still promoted most vigorously by the EPP.
Our new group will become a very visible and potent force that can serve as a rallying point in the European Parliament, setting the agenda rather than being a victim of it. Because it will be close to the beliefs and values of our citizens, it will actually help us win elections. Then we shall have a real opportunity to bring about the change in Europe that is so necessary.